“Experts in Europe warn that these devices are used to record strangers without their consent, possibly breaching EU law.”
“A small LED light is designed to indicate when recording is taking place, but RTBF’s investigators found that tutorials explaining how to conceal the indicator are abundant and easily accessible online.”
Sometimes I have a hard time deciding who I despise more, parasite Mark Zuckerberg or its witless hosts who keep using its products—yes, Zuck’s pronoun is it. Ban Ray-Ban, for frick’s sake.
There was a similar news article in Germany a few days ago. It was about a “pick-up artist/dating coach/influencer” named Erick Ronaldo secretly filming some girl at the Oktoberfest and posting it to his channel where that girl was ridiculed in the comments. (Fun fact: when the news media approached that guy and asked for a statement, he demanded $7,500 for an interview - which they, of course, didn’t pay)
he demanded $7,500 for an interview
Is he going to ask the police to pay him for interrogation?
heimliches Filmen ist aktuell in Deutschland nicht per se strafbar. Besonders in öffentlichen Räumen sind Betroffene kaum geschützt.
(Roughly in English)
covert filming isn’t currently illegal in Germany per se. Those filmed are rarely protected, especially in public
Filming in public not being illegal, I get, but he’s profiting off of her likeness. Ideally that would be illegal itself, but even if not, could she not sue him for a share? Obviously, putting the burden on victims is not a great remedy, especially because it’s expensive, a huge hassle, and risks the Streisand effect, but I could see a women’s rights organization orchestrating it for her and it might be possible to keep her identity secret.
Again, I don’t think that’s ideal, but it seems better than nothing and wouldn’t preclude criminal charges from going through if the government does figure out how to prosecute this
Filming by itself isn’t illegal in Germany, but publishing the footage without consent of everyone in the video is. (“Recht am eigenen Bild”) Don’t know how this applies if the perpetrator is from the USA and publishes the recording there, though.
And even if - good luck in suing someone from the US while you’re still in Germany.
You could at least get it taken down from YouTube through German privacy rights, since it was filmed in Germany.
Yeah, probably. But this doesn’t help much when the damage is already done, i.e. people have already commented bad things. And might even entice people (that might’ve downloaded it) to upload it again. Also, not sure whether this works as easy on e.g. TikTok.
I think that could fall under “Recht am eigenen Bild” (right to your own picture). It gives you the right to decide how images of you are used. If he profits off of photos/videos of her, she should have the right to sue him. It might also be illegal to publish the videos under GDPR law, especially in combination with more personal information like first name or city.
However, big festivals like the Oktoberfest often have a disclaimer that you agree to being filmed and your picture being published due to TV, press etc. being there. I don’t know how that would work.
I believe (not a lawyer or expert in that field) that this does not cover covert and targeted filming.
I’d argue it’s there to allow TV to make background shots and perform interviews without trouble.
right to your own picture
That’s pretty handy. Seems like that means you should therefore have the right for it not to be non-consensually sucked into the Meta AI training corpus (and you know it is) or sold to face recognition companies etc.
Just some evidence away from a massive class action lawsuit against Meta. Yes please, spank 'em hard.
I would love that. I’m not sure if that works, since afaik the law only regulates the publication of your picture and profiting off of someone’s photo. In cases of AI training you usually publish it yourself and for example Facebook and Reddit already make you agree to using your photo however they want.
I wonder if AI companies could be sued for using pictures from a private website for training.
Stories like this are gonna get worse. These glasses naturally self-select for assholes.
Glassholes.
I’m being filmed without my consent by corporations everywhere I go
Yes but they have the right
In Europe, they often don’t. Enforcement is difficult though.
Yeah, unwritten laws are a silly idea.
Thank goodness they wrote in down then.
If the company puts up a sign notifying that there are cameras on the premises then under Article 6.1(f) https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/ it is allowed due to “legitimate interest” in deterring crime, securing premises, promoting general safety. This could be argued in a court that it fails the balancing test and that they could and should use more narrow means of collection but the way the courts have ruled I don’t think you’d win that case. Although to be fair the EU doesn’t use common law or case law for decisions so it could be up to the particular judge.
Going back to the article though, if a person with the glasses is filming for “purely personal or household activity,” the entire GDPR is exempt under Article 2(2)© https://gdpr-info.eu/art-2-gdpr/
GDPR regulates the data and the processing, not the act of filming or the expectation of privacy for an exempt usage. If they decide to sell this on a creeper site that is different but I wouldn’t look to GDPR to be the primary legal framework for this being explicitly illegal. The actions under original article would more directly be a violation of multiple other national laws like Germany’s “KunstURHG” and France’s “Droit à l’image”
Oh. So somebody in power is going to do something about it. I’m glad.
Another privacy epidemic unfolding, only waiting when it auto link people you see om the streets to their social media profiles
Didnt that already get done to demonstrate the complete lack of privacy caused by this?
Checking…
Yeah this was what I was thinking of: https://stateofsurveillance.org/news/rsac-meta-smart-glasses-facial-recognition-hacked-live-demo-2026/
I understand how creepy this is but why is this any different than the 1000s of cameras on poles literally everywhere these days. Neither of these should be acceptable
The cameras on poles can’t see literally everywhere, and can’t physically follow you around.
And the cameras on poles have (at least in theory) regulations and laws governing how their footage can (and cannot) be used.
MetaCreepSpecs don’t have any such restrictions.
It wouldn’t historically be crazy to take your sunglasses into a locker room or bathroom, for example. Now? WTF DUDE. YOU SOME KIND OF CREEP!?
Completely agree, but because another bad thing exists, it’s no reason not to care about this bad thing.
These are also separate (but obviously related) issues. The flock and other surveillance cameras are about control and, well surveillance. These meta glasses are about personal interactions and predatory behavior of creepy people. They are also markedly different than cameras in phones, since they are much more obvious that they are recording.
They both need to go.
Which is why I said neither of these should be acceptable.
Which is why I said I completely agree. Just adding some context…
Oh sorry. Reading comprehension is not my strong point… 😀 Carry on.
No worries, we’re all friends here. Carry on yourself :)
The cameras on poles are meant for public spaces and security. Meta glasses are for whatever the fuck the wearer will intend the recordings for for private use.
The article is about people being filmed in public places though.
Because somehow those recordings being misused is less offensive than these recordings being misused.
Honestly, the privacy aspect in public is completely out the window already. Anyone arguing that these are somehow worse than what already exists is either arguing in bad faith or misunderstands the current (previous?) state of things.
They’re not worse, but having yet another thing invading our privacy in public IS worse. No sense in giving up even more ground.
invading our privacy in public
Stop and think about what you just said for a second. Privacy……in public. You have no privacy in public, those are opposites.
There’s degrees of privacy. People don’t deserve to be recorded 24/7 just because they happen to be outside.
They don’t “deserve” to, but it is not illegal if they are. If you’re in a public space you shouldn’t expect privacy……because you’re in a public place. That’s pretty obvious.
Something being legal doesn’t make it morally correct and the rest of us should oppose this shit in every way we can, not simply expect it.
Oppose what, that you can be filmed or photographed without explicit consent when you’re in public?
So if I go to the Eiffel Tower, I have to go and ask the hundreds of other people there if they consent to me taking their photo simply because they’re in my photo? Or if I see a criminal breaking into a house, I have to ask them if I can take their photo/video if I want to report them and hand over my photos/video to the police?
Found the creep.
For simply stating the obvious?
In most of the world the law is pretty straight forward here - no expectation of privacy in public. Knowing this isn’t “creepy”. Not knowing this is hilarious.
You might skip any trips to urban UK.
US cities are doing it too, but I just avoid urban areas as much as possible regardless.
Difference being: we’re kind of powerless against government surveillance high up on a fence, but we can sanction the class traitor glassholes with an accidental elbow to the glasses and a clumsy step on them.
Seems like you’re giving a pass to government and corpos, while assaulting fellow citizens.
I intend on getting whatever glasses eventually come out with an AR layer involved, camera or not. Doesn’t mean I’ll be constantly recording. In fact I’d likely almost never record anything.
And apparently that means I deserve an elbow to the face.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No, I am not giving a pass to government and corpos. But people recording others in public are henchmen of the very same fascist governments and yes, you deserve an elbow to the face if you record ANYONE (in more detail than within a large group of pedestrians) in public EVER without their explicit consent. Because you are - at least in civilized countries - violating privacy laws with the expectation that no one will sue you for it.
You’ve already stated that simply wearing them is assaultable. You have no way of knowing I’m recording, so you’ve just made the assumption that I am.
You’ll find that in almost every civilised country recording in public is 100% allowed. It’s what you do with the footage that has restrictions and laws around it.
Privacy in public is not a thing. They’re literally antonyms.
is being done != is being allowed. don’t film people without explicit consent, or you deserve whatever happens to you as a consequence.
Sorry but the law is the law, and in public places you can and will be filmed and they don’t need your explicit consent. Which countries do you think it is illegal to film people in public places without explicit consent?
If you don’t like it, don’t go out in public. Also don’t pretend like anyone here is going to do anything to anyone wearing them lol. Everyone is a hero behind their keyboard. There would be no consequences.
What are you even talking about? How is being filmed not worse than not being filmed, privacy-wise?
This is what I don’t get either. We literally have dozens of various camera options monitoring us in public, from random video doorbells to store CCTV, state/police CCTV, Google Maps cars, people on their phones, police officers and even random hired security thugs posing around with wearable cameras, drones, you name it… but the problem is cameras built into glasses?
Most European countries have actually codified that one has no expectations of privacy in public - that is, one may be recorded while out and about. Of course there’s legislations about harassment - e.g. following someone with a camera and specifically recording them, in an attempt to harass or threaten them - and what essentially constitutes as blackmail (“I’ll remove this video of you if you pay me”), so people should be using the recourse for those crimes, not criminalising a new product category.
Just owning a camera didn’t make upskirt photos legal, nor does using a Meta camera glass make harassment legal.
Do you know the meaning of CCTV?
Also yes, you can have a reasonable expectation of privacy while in public – within reason.Legally, you don’t.
And while indeed CCTV used to mean that it’s closed circuit, today it now refers simply to camera systems installed for public (in the sense of non-clandestine) surveillance purposes. Given most these systems are cloud connected, they’re hardly closed circuit, right? Yet we still use the term.
One is state approved surveillance. The other is just a camera that is limited in scope, view, and usage.
I understand how creepy this is but why is this any different than the 1000s of cameras on poles literally everywhere these days. Neither of these should be acceptable
Camera’s on poles are obvious, they are mostly immobile apart from some pan tilt zoom, they are subject to privacy and data retention laws, they are announced with signage, they serve a specific public or private interest (like security), they are some auditable entity’s respontibility and they don’t have anywhere near the resolution you can get on the ground with a camera strapped to your face.
The guy with the meta glasses is a huge questionmark on all of that, including intentions and when they are actually recording.
I never understood why a well-known brand like RayBan would want to be associated with this.
deleted by creator
as literally almost all glasses brands
deleted by creator
Gatorade never had vitamins, even in its original formulation. It was flavored water with salt to help athletes with electrolyte depletion.
Also, Gatorade is owned by Pepsi. Maybe you’re thinking of Powerade, which was crap.
deleted by creator
And Meta probably have Luxotica a large sack of cash to make these glasses.
Most people are so stupid and just do whatever they’re told to the extent that if meta releases these glasses and tells you that they’re cool, then people will be like, wow, these glasses are cool. Rayban just wants in on it. It makes a lot of sense unfortunately.
The world has gone to shit because capitalism created a reality where Mark Zuckerberg’s dreams come true.
If only people had said “no thanks, I’m good” when Fakebook rolled out. Of course something else equally as shitty would have probably taken its place.
Hindsight is 20/20 but only few, if any, expected how big of a giant piece of shit Facebook will become and especially its founder. Most people thought it is just another fad, and expected it will go the way of most other social media sites at the time such as Friendster, Bebo and MySpace.
Zuck was always a giant piece of shit. On discussing the information its first users’ willingness to give personal details to The Face Book back at (?) Harvard (?) he said: “… They just send it to me. They trust me. The dumb fucks.”
He was mask-off from the beginning. We’re (society, not addressing anyone individually) just really blind to threats when distracted by shiny, noisy crap.
Most people would not have known about what Zuck in the earlier years of Facebook. Heck, even to this day, either most people still don’t know or don’t care. Facebook is still extremely popular in developing countries because the site is free regardless of whether or not you have a mobile internet data. But they don’t realise they are being manipulated by the social media to give them free information and to vote a certain way in elections that is against their own interest.
You forget this is, by definition, before Facebook. It’s also before any social media became popular. People had never heard the name Zuckerberg, let alone heard what he was like. And people had not had to deal with this type of predatory company. Google was still “don’t be devil”, and Microsoft was a completely different type of predator - one asking for money, not giving things for free.
As others have said: hindsight is easy, but this was a very different time.
It’s kind of like survivorship bias: The ones who rise to the very top must be the most ruthless and biggest pieces of shit. It’s like taking 20 trials to rise to the top, and to succeed each trial fucking others over and only concerning yourself with your advancement is beneficial. It only leaves the worst.
It certainly paves the way for kakistocracy
But you know, back then it was “supposed” to about making connections with friends and family. Although the true original were just to meet college aged chicks
it was to rate college aged chicks.
“Experts in Europe warn that these devices are used to record strangers without their consent, possibly breaching EU law.”
Isn’t this all public cameras?
Except that these cameras easily go anywhere, they aren’t just outside on the street.
Spas? Pools? Gyms Locker rooms? Find a nice spot sitting on a bench near a women’s dressing room at the mall that peeks in a bit? Set your glasses at your side and record while you look ahead at your phone, not freaking anyone out. They’re pervert enablers just as much as Grok is a CSAM machine if you pay for it.
Thats already illegal we don’t need more laws for that, just enforcement.
as much as Grok is a CSAM machine if you pay for it.
CSAM is Child Sexual Assault Media, and Grok is not providing that, it’s providing Child Pornography.
You are comparing making non-consensual material with real people to generating material with no real people (based off real media, though, but that’s an implication with everything AI-generated).
If you spend some time understanding how AI image generation works, it’s essentially iterating on known images to make images that are probably also close to what it was rained on.
So if someone took some CSAM pictures printed up, and cut them up and made a collage, is that no longer CSAM? Of course not. It’s still CSAM. If someone took digital CSAM images and photoshoped the victims into different settings, it’s still CSAM. Real people were victims in the base material.
If you trained a Stable Diffusion model on only pictures of Rwandan people, and asked for an image of “a man sitting on a chair” the man will look vaguely Rwandan.
When you train an AI on CSAM, it produces images that are based on CSAM. Real people were victims in the base material, too. Close e-fuckin’-nough. Real people’s victimization is literally the core of how those images are made.
it’s essentially iterating on known images
No. It’s iterating on the common traits of known images compressed plus lots of randomization.
If you trained a Stable Diffusion model on only pictures of Rwandan people, and asked for an image of “a man sitting on a chair” the man will look vaguely Rwandan.
If you train a model on adult pornography and non-pornography with children and adults alike, it might be capable of generating plausible child pornography.
When you train an AI on CSAM, it produces images that are based on CSAM. Real people were victims in the base material, too. Close e-fuckin’-nough. Real people’s victimization is literally the core of how those images are made.
I’ve just told you how this is not true.
You seem to have that “all or nothing” mindset in an argument, as if you really didn’t like someone, then they should be prosecuted as a rapist, a murderer and an arsonist at the same time. Exaggerating, of course.
Point being that child pornography without real victims is something not contested here and has its own implications. You are trying to argue on something out of reach.
Do you honestly think people who make AI CP and want to see CP are training models on a ton of things to get them close, and then figuring out how to nudge it all just a bit further? Or do the people already in the CSAM world with access to CSAM that want to make CP just use the CSAM to train the model? I expect the second. Meaning there’s victims.
Plus, it’s disgusting and should be illegal anywhere that it isn’t just in general. It’s weird that you’re defending it like it’s diet coke or something.
Plus, it’s disgusting and should be illegal anywhere that it isn’t just in general. It’s weird that you’re defending it like it’s diet coke or something.
“It’s disgusting” is not quite the right argument for making something illegal.
And that “you’re defending” presupposition should honestly be your last claim in any group of people before being shown the door.
You seem to have that “all or nothing” mindset in an argument, as if you really didn’t like someone, then they should be prosecuted as a rapist, a murderer and an arsonist at the same time. Exaggerating, of course.
Quoting myself.
I “honestly think” each case is unique. Just like with everything else.
CP is harmful due to normalizing the thing, useful due to redirecting some of the energy people with that pathology have away from, you know, real children.
All or nothing is right - nothing. No images depicting child sexual abuse. None. Not AI, not animated, not drawn, not real CSAM. WTF is even wrong with you?
Yes, in a way.
Privacy laws are a little complicated but not that bad.
In this case Europe sees filming in public, while concealing the fact, not legal.
Conversely, if you are filming and it is very clear that you are(ie a camera, film crew etc) and you are not singling out anyone who doesnt want to be recorded then it is perfectly legal to film in public.
Do you see how it works now and how these Ray-Ban glasses go against this?
Its legal to record in public as long as you respect the privacy of others. Of course they can always be a background figure if they are not focused on but making them the star of your production without consent makes it very illegal and immoral in my opinion.
Have a great day!
I work in the field, in Europe, and can confirm this is about right. There are also situations where you start needing permits to film, either because it’s private property or even public property if you start having to put down a lot of equipment and crew.
I think the difference that most people overlook, is that she doesn’t know. It’s a “hidden” camera. If they were holding up a phone or dslr, people would know to get out of the shot if they didn’t want to be filmed. Plus, it’s Europe, they’re probably better about privacy.
100% correct.
Also, Quebec (not sure about anywhere else in the world) has the same kind of laws, so not just Europe.
Except the camera outside every shop and on every streetcorner, yeah!
Yes, and many of those are illegal as well. Many home cameras (as part of video doorbells) are pointed at public streets, and they are usually illegal as well.
Most countries don’t have laws against recording public areas though, and generally as long as it’s not for commercial use even the ones that do haven’t set a precedent against it. The problem is when people are being recorded in compromising situations and in those cases it’s usually illegal.
How about dash cams?
I am not an expert. Dashcam legality differs across EU countries, but generally you are not allowed to share dashcam video.
I see what you’re driving at, but CCTV cameras are recording 24/7 on the offchance that the footage is needed, just in case, by a body who is often regulated and monitored. Whereas the concern with the glasses is that they are operated by an otherwise anonymous individual and the recording is more likely to be targeted rather than a broadly cast net.
The very reason the first camera phones had to be re-engineered to add mandatory shutter sounds to them.
I think the mandatory shutter sound is a Japan-only thing.
The very reason the first camera phones had to be re-engineered to add mandatory shutter sounds to them.
What?!?
Think about what you are saying for the love of all existence.
Volume buttons have always existed on cell phones. Your statement makes no sense.
Have a good day.
Cell phones in Japan must have an audible shutter sound. Pretty sure turning down the volume isn’t enough to silence it.
Those aren’t looking up her skirt, down her shirt, at your crotch or seeing your plumber’s crack, just for that purpose.
Recording camera in public sources are subject to the EU law. You can’t install then without authorization and their use is reglemented.
I don’t know if it’s there case in all the EU but for example in France people need to be informed by a sign of a camera is recording the area, they can’t record the entrance of private houses …
In the US installation of cameras is actually pretty similar, but it’s a property thing more than a privacy thing.
For instance, Flock made a deal with a local HOA to install cameras, but the fence lines for the houses are at the property line, so where they’re wanting to place the cameras is in the public right-of-way. So they need to request a license to encroach into public property with private improvements.
However, cameras on private property facing public property are perfectly legal. And any private space visible from public property also has no “reasonable expectation of privacy.”
Private property in public view not having an expectation of privacy sounds insane, but prohibiting recording of publicly-visible property essentially bans almost all outdoor recording of any kind because some private property is probably going to be somewhere in the frame.
If I take a selfie in the break room of my office (2nd floor), the background will include bits of dozens of private properties through the window.
Even if the LED is visible, is this enough to consider it consensual?
No, consent is saying yes or no, not wether or not I see a small LED (which can probably also be disabled by the savvy individual)
which can probably also be disabled by the savvy individual
You don’t need to be too savy to put a little piece of black tape over it
It is not that simple. It has a sensor to check if the led is covered.
Just tape over that sensor too
It’s tape all the way down, isn’t it?
it’s not that siml- gets taped
Perhaps not a piece of black tape, sure–but it’s not like there aren’t options out there. A quick Bing provided plenty of links to research ways to circumvent the LED.
Respect for not using Google for search.
Did you try Ecosia?That’s actually my go-to! Started using Ecosia after reading about it here 🙂
As for my comment–I figured Bing would make a better verb than Google (plus I’m so over Google at this point)
Tell that to some states in the US where there’s a thing called “one-party consent”, i.e. if one party knows about the recording (which the wearer obviously would), it’s legal.
That’s for reccrding audio, iirc. Much more defensible and protects the little guy more. Eg, recording a meeting with an asshole boss
It’s the same in Sweden, you are allowed to record any conversation you yourself is taking part in. I think it’s a fair law. Video though, not so much.
deleted by creator
Which US state is Brussels in? Does EU law apply in that state?
There are multiple: IL, WI
Unlikely
That’s for audio, not video, but it does bring up a point - do these glasses record audio? Because that could be a legal defense in a two party consent state. It would essentially make it illegal in two party states. It also depends on whether audio in public is protected at all, the way video is.
Even if the LED is visible, is this enough to consider it consensual?
No. That would mean everyone in the world would have to be up-to-date with technological “advances”, and that everyone would have the assertiveness to explicitly deny someone’s attempt at filming / uphold their right to privacy. Not everyone is up-to-date, and definitely not everyone has the assertiveness, nor is there an equal balance of power between two parties. E.g., I know for sure that a lot of elder people walking in the forest would like to speak up to younger obnoxiously loud morons, but they don’t because they know many people are too weak/underdeveloped/self-centered to handle criticism well, and therefore they remain silent out of fear for being physically assaulted.
Ban them.
Ray Ban them.
A small LED light is designed to indicate when recording is taking place, but RTBF’s investigators found that tutorials explaining how to conceal the indicator are abundant and easily accessible online.
You need a tutorial to use a piece of electrical tape?
The users are peak idiots…
Supposedly there is a sensor that detects if the recording light is covered and disables the camera, so it’s about bypassing that.
I am not a fan of this technology, but as far as I am aware there is not expectation of privacy when in public.
I am filmed constantly without my knowledge when in public in the UK.
According to google there are restrictions in the EU about publishing videos of people in public where you make them the focus of the video.
Germany is not “the EU”, even if they think they are.
But they are in the EU.
“in the EU, journalism is oppressed and genocides can’t be recognised without special consideration of which special people are doing the genocide” would be a useful sentence by your logic.
Psssst: Brussels is the capital of Belgium, you know that little speck that isn’t Germany.
I’m aware. I’ve been.
Belgium has the right of panorama, an essential right for journalism.
Um… Ok thanks for sharing. Lol
There is a difference between surveillance by a democratically elected government and some random dude though.
I.e. in Germany homeowners are only allowed to film their own property. The cameras field of view may not reach into public space.
Also while photography in public spaces is generally allowed, people may demand the deletion of photos showing their face.
Surveillance by a government used to mean they had a random police officer follow you because it was worth the time. Now it’s on mass surveillence which is automated and fed into faulty AI systems flagging. A random dude with a camera doesn’t compare.
So to be clear, you are okay with being surveilled by the government?
So to be clear, you are OK with disbanding any form of law enforcement?
FFS at least try to argue in good faith.
Being against public surveillance doesn’t mean I want to abolish ALL forms of law enforcement/ crime prevention.
My concern (living the UK, a country with a disproportionate number of cctv) is that a society with extensive surveillance infrastructure creates the capability for abuse tomorrow. Once cameras, facial recognition systems, vehicle tracking, and data retention systems exist, future governments inherit those powers regardless of their good intent (or not as the case may be).
It’s already happening here. These systems are being used for “behaviour analysis” and tracking of lawful activities like protests and political activity. They his kind of mission creep is a slippery slope.
There is also the question of effectiveness. The UK has one of the highest densities of CCTV cameras in the democratic world, yet evidence on their impact varies significantly. There is little statistical reduction in inner city crime as a result beyond drug crime (20%), which in my opinion could be handled in a much more positive way.
I can’t speak for other countries.
So yeah, I am anti government surveillance.
Oh, so a short sentence can imply a more nuanced opinion on a subject? /s
Maybe keep that in mind next time before jumping to conclusions.
On the subject: If you want to enforce laws you have to have a way of knowing about violations. This happens via surveillance. Having CCTV is obviously surveillance but so is to show a driver’s license. Or compliance documentation. So the question is not whether or not you want government surveillance or not but how much.
Ah yes, because there is no space between a surveillance state and “disbanding all forms of law enforcement”
FFS at least try to argue in good faith.
You should take your own advice
I didn’t think I’d need an /s for this comment but here we go:
/s
It’s cultural I guess. In France you have an expectation of privacy in public. Same for Belgium I guess.
I don’t think this is correct.
Public photography is generally acceptable in law in France until you publish the images. You risk civil or data protection claims if you publish identifiable images without a lawful basis or consent.
I think there’s a difference between a world where someone could be recording you at any time and one where corporations are recording you 100% of the time, using masses of willing and paying citizens, in order to exploit you.
deleted by creator
It’s the whole entire point of these glasses so this surely cannot be a surprise.
I’m just waiting for bans on these glasses now, because that is inevitably where this is headed as the public at large simply cannot be trusted to handle this kind of technology responsibly.
And the harder these glasses become to spot, the broader the bans will be, undoubtedly right up the point where they’ll just straight up refuse anybody with any kind of thick framed glasses.
Given that cameras are readily available to the public, these glasses will likely only be banned in specific controlled locations.
I mean I can literally just put my phone in a shirt pocket with camera rolling.
Well, fucking don’t.
I actually have done this, but nothing nefarious. Work-related in a non-public environment. Video calling a coworker for assistance and needed to be able to use my hands.
Are mobile phones banned in public? Cameras?
In my world there is a non-trivial difference between pointing your phone in someone’s general direction and just having inconspicuous looking glasses film everything implicitly.
There shouldn’t really be. Phones can easily record people without their knowledge even as you walk right past them.
People could do lots of things, but it really isn’t as trivial to secretly get eye level footage of what you’re looking at with a smartphone, as you’re making it out to be.
Things like phones peeking out of breastpockets with their camera stick out like a sore thumb and aren’t nearly as easily directed at whatever you intend to record without people realizing you’re recording something.
And the open prescence of a phone always has some implication of a possibility of recording. Glasses do (or rather did) not.
Also, this specific device is a Meta product. And those, by definition, deserve all the hate they can get on the count of them being a gigantic privacy problem due to the nature of the business Meta is ultimately in.
Look, if someone is wearing these and not announcing it, i’m going to punch them. When people get their shit lit up over this, people will get the message.
We need to nationalize two-party consent for this
I’m sorry but no one believes people when they say things like this, because it’s just not true. Pretending to be a tough guy on the internet is easy, but you’re not going to choose to go to jail because you saw a person with glasses on.
It’s like those arguments over whether or not it’s okay to punch Nazis. The people who were arguing about it were never going to punch any Nazis in the first place.
Doesn’t sound like the other person would consent, but if I were on your jury I’d say you were clearly defending yourself.
And soon women will wear those kind of glasses too to scan men for facial recognition and see if they’re flagged for secretly recording, convictions, … A huge discussion starts about privacy and data.
And soon women will wear those kind of glasses too to scan men for facial recognition and see if they’re flagged for secretly recording, convictions, … A huge discussion starts about privacy and data.
That’s actually a very good point. Glasses such as these could indeed be used preventively as shitty behavior dash cams.
We need videos on tiktok and insta of hot women making brutal commentary of men in public, filmed on Meta glasses.
It’s the only way.
